SPECIAL NOTE : Below are my counter-arguments in the context of an
on-going debate on Altruism. This has little to do with OpenCard
development, but it becomes somewhat relevant where OODL and
OC-licencing are concerned. And because so many have responded too.
Anthony : Yep. With communism, you quickly find that no matter how hard
you work, you still don't have enough food on your plate. And the more
labor you do, the hungrier you are... so the only logical action is to
site around all day and do nothing.
Alain : First of all, we were not specifically talking about Communism.
We were discussing whether people (and our economy) are driven
primarily by Need and, if such needs were met, that these fortunate
people would do absolutely nothing from then on. Or whether people are
inherently and spontaneously driven to working because work is
gratifying, because allows one to express one’s self, and because it
provides opportunities to socialize with other like-minded people. Of
course, I am not talking about those jobs that are so awful that people
only stay on for the salary and because they lack the opportunity
and/or the courage to occupy themselves with work that is more
rewarding.
Alain : Secondly, the problem with Communism is not so much its
political philosophy (Marx and all of that) as it is the rigid
bureaucratic socio-political structure that concentrated power in the
hands of very few individuals who, “for security reasons”, were not
held accountable for their actions. Lots of power and no one to answer
to. An explosive combination that is hard for anyone to resist and,
sooner or later, leads to corruption and abuse of power of the ruling
class, which in turn does not go un-noticed by those who are ruled and
THAT leads to the drain of motivation that you speak of.
Alain : If, on the other hand, the same political philosophy had been
supported by a democratic system, with checks & balances on the
exercice of power, with full accountability of those who wield it, and
no one body or person that wields too much of it, then it might have
succeeded. To those who would qualify this as communistic, I would like
to point that these are precisely the principles upon which the
Constitution of the USA were founded, but didn’t quite live up to
either!
>Anthony, what you're describing is a particular
>implementation of communism, which was faulty.
>Communism as Marx envisioned it, wouldn't have suffered
>this fate as everyone would have had enough to eat.
Alain : Especially in our times, with automation to assist us with the
production side of things, and computer-mediated communication and
collaboration where political debate, decision-making and
accountability are concerned.
Anthony : Well, you can write anything you want in a book, but reality
is reality.
Alain : Reality is what each individual makes it out to be. Even
perception of the (alledged) reality that is objectively out there is
conditioned by the on-going modeling process in our brain.
Uli : It's like with Velocity. Even though Velocity was slow as a dead
cat, that doesn't mean all interpreters have to be as slow. It was only
this particular implementation, while the basic concept allows for
speed.
Alain : One should indeed be careful about generalizing from one
specific case.
Anthony : But in comparison with a real compiler,
the basic concept is _far_slower.
Alain : Sure. Human affairs do indeed require more time and effort.
>>Anthony : But it's also damaging to the giver: You
>>don't have the food that you gave to the animals
>>anymore. And if enough animals were to come begging,
>>you would have no food for yourself. And you would not
>>have food for them, either. That's the ultimate ned of
>>altruism: Death.
Alain : Dubious argument. It allows the non-givers that could afford to
give the rationale for doing nothing. You don’t give everything you
got, as above, but you give what you can. And giving doesn’t
necessarily imply money either. Should we let the Third-World make due
the best they can without providing them with any assistance
whatsoever? Would they be better off? Would WE be better off? Sure we
might each have a few dollars more in our pockets, but consider the
ultimate consequences of millions of desperate people without hope that
will be obliged to ravage the planet for their short-term survival.
Isn’t this precisely what is happening to the Rain Forest? 50% of the
World’s oxygen supply is said to come from it. So it is
NOT-helping-them that will lead to a global disaster.
>Uli : Not if everyone is altruistic. Then everyone
>helps everyone and all get what they need, when they
>need it. Seen from this (agreeably one-sided)
>viewpoint, altruism is a very good base for a state.
Alain : I agree. As Kennedy once said : “Ask not what your country can
do for you but, rather, what you can do for your country”. For large
collective initiatives like society-building to succeed, altruism must
play a role. We do things for the ones we love. We do things for our
children. We do things with the promise that we will be rewarded for
them in Heaven (religion). Altruism is everywhere!
Anthony : No, they don't. because if you are 100% altruistic, you can't
take the stuff -- because that would be for your own good -- and you
must give it to your neighbor, who gives it to his neighbor, etc.,
until it rots.
Alain : Hypothetical. Academic argument.
Uli : The problem is that here comes in the fact Marx didn't realize
(while he realized many things that are astonishing to see if you look
at today's world and how it turned out so similar to how he said the
future would be),that humans are not beings that are 100% altruistic.
Anthony : Because if they were 100% altruistic, they'd die from the rot
scenario above. And if they are anything less than 100%, the best
alternative is 0%.
Alain : I don’t believe that there are merely two alternatives here.
All or nothing is very infrequent in Life. Everything is usually
somewhere in-between. Shades of grey, so to speak. Only in computers
and in formal logic are such either-or extremes frequent.
Alain : We all look out for ourselves, to some degree, so we could
never be 100% altruistic. But we have all, at some time or another,
done something for somebody, without demanding anything (or as much) in
return. So it is unlikely that anyone is 0% altruistic either.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
