Iam, dishonesty or larceny as I like to call it, seems endemic to the human species. It's the biggest problems we've been working to overcome throughout our history ... and we've a long way yet to go.
On Aug 4, 8:48 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > Vam I went sailing with a very good friend of mine who happens to work for a > Chinese company and we talked about his work (we always do I am used to vent > his frustration) but one thing he said kind of stuck.. and that was he was > amazed at their dishonesty not only to their customers but also among > themselves .. > > I am still sorting through this thought as I have no other reference. > Allan > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thank you, Fran ! > > > To state my position simply : I'd like the capitalist system to ( be > > more tuned in to ) serve socialist goals. And, with today's > > technologies and process creating abilities, it is possible. > > > To wit, Russia and China came about to using the socialist system for > > capitalist aims. Don't know much about Cuba. What's been followed in > > the US, capitalist system for capitalist aims, has proved its limits, > > time and again. We need to grow up. > > > Not able to dwell longer than I want to, just now. Eagerly waiting to > > hear from Gruff, Chris, Neil ... on this. > > > On Aug 4, 1:20 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ok, gruff, I'll jump in - a bit! > > > > This thread started being about what it means to own something. It's > > > meandered a bit, as threads do, and has arrived at questions > > > concerning the recent financial crisis and what has been done, not > > > done, done badly, done well, could have been done, etc. This has given > > > rise to considerations about systems, fixing systems, changing > > > systems, whether systems are central, peripheral, whether we should be > > > more concerned with basic questions of human nature. > > > > Phew! Cooking stuff down like this is strenuous, but I often find that > > > it is helpful in a complex discussion to briefly recapitulate what's > > > been going on. > > > > I'd like to try to look at some of the stuff you and Vam have been > > > working on within the original context of the thread. One of the basic > > > characteristics of "free-market capitalism," which gruff prefers, is > > > the primacy it gives to the concept of the sanctity of private > > > ownership. (I won't go into the issue of whether, or how far, this > > > system is actually free and fair - although it is a major point for > > > discussion). But, simplified, the basis of capitalism is personal > > > possession. Using a very old way of thinking (followed, among others, > > > by Marx), agreed units of energy, surplus to the basic needs of > > > survival and living, become the property of individuals, who use them > > > as they wish (money/capital). They can be traded for goods or > > > property, given to others (inheritance or gifts) or "invested," put to > > > use in such a way that their values multiply. This "surplus value" > > > becomes the property of the one who has invested the original units > > > (and, no, I don't want to get into a discussion of Marx's theory of > > > surplus value here), less the ensuing costs (particularly labour > > > costs). If a "fair" price is paid for this labour, and those involved > > > in the value-increasing project are genuinely empowered in the process > > > and given a share of the proceeds of success then it need not > > > necessarily seen as exploitative (although, for Marx, it always is). > > > It is, however, a system which invites both exploitation (both of > > > people and environments) and speculation. This has been, historically, > > > one characteristic of market capitalism. Another has been a massive > > > creation of surplus value. Gruff sees the way forward in preserving > > > this while regulating to minimise the opportunites for and adverse > > > effects of exploitation and speculation. > > > > This is, now pay attention, my US American friends ;-), what Western > > > Europeans have been practicing since the 1950s. It's called "Social > > > market economy" (soziale Marktwirtschaft) and is one of the basic > > > ideas behind the European Union. It has been under strong pressure > > > since the 1980s, particularly by neo-liberal thinkers inspired by > > > economic thinkers like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek (and their > > > political avatars, Reagan and Thatcher). > > > > The crash is, to a large part, the result of the prevelance of those > > > trains of thought, the end products of the developments in the > > > eighties, which saw state/societal regulation as deeply suspicious, > > > something to be reduced as much as possible, and inclined to see > > > markets as being largely "self-regulating." > > > > The chance which the crash gives is to critically examine some of the > > > basic premises behind the capitalist system, particularly in the free- > > > wheeling incarnation which was praised as being so successful from > > > 1989 to 2008. You can choose to repair the system, but otherwise leave > > > it basically intact. Maybe move more towards social market economics, > > > increasing controls and (trying to) close off avenues for abuse, > > > exploitation and speculation. The basic principle of private ownership > > > remains unchanged, perhaps, because it is argued, that it best takes > > > into account the idea of the centrality of self-interest as a > > > fundamental characteristic of human nature. This, it seems to me, is > > > the path gruff suggests. > > > > Vam's preference (one which I would personally share) - if I > > > understand him correctly - is to broaden the aspects of human nature > > > on which we base the structures along which we order our societies, to > > > include such concepts as solidarity, fairness and compassion; also, it > > > can be argued, fundamental characteristics of human nature. This, > > > however, does seem to involve a more socialist vector, in which the > > > primacy of private property becomes more relativised. This need not > > > mean a new Soviet system (I would sincerely hope not!). It does have > > > the advantage of allowing us to examine some sacred cows a bit more > > > honestly. For example, what about ideas of guaranteeing all members of > > > society a basic income which would guarantee their material existence, > > > irrespective of work? Should we think about imposing limits on how > > > much can be inherited (given that people would no longer have to worry > > > about the existential security of their offspring)? Could we develop a > > > sense of communal moral suspicion of the idea of making profits out of > > > the illness of others, or the basic principle that health, like clean > > > air, water, food and a roof over one's head, is a basic human right? > > > > Personally, if the result of the crash of 08 is more "social" in the > > > market economy, then I'd be happy enough. Although I would regret the > > > (once more) lost chance to look more deeply at the ways we organise > > > ourselves. But the window of of opportunity is closing. Still there > > > are other things going on in the world. Maybe we should be looking > > > more closely at South America. People like Evo Morales in Bolivia, for > > > example. I don't dare mention Hugo Chavez, for fear that Don will come > > > over here to beat me up :-) > > > > Francis > > > > On 3 Aug., 19:03, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Chris actually got this round going back on Aug 2, 1:11 pm with his > > > > series of one-liners but I'd like to see the both of you in this as > > > > well. > > > > > Nice summary Francis. Yes, I can see we are both arguing along very > > > > similar lines and aiming at the same goal. But I'd like to see you > > > > and Chris get into the fray as well. The more voices the more stable > > > > and productive the discussion would be. After all, we each know each > > > > other well enough to assess each others words fairly well. > > > > > /e > > > > > On Aug 3, 9:23 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Now this is what I call a discussion, Vam and gruff! (BB47 and > > > > > deripsni could both learn from you :-)) > > > > > > Maybe it's because the three of us have been around here for a while > > > > > that I can really appreciate what both of you are saying, because I > > > > > know something about the way the two of you think about a lot of > > > > > things. Actually, I see you both arguing along similar lines; Vam has > > > > > a professional background in systems analysis and quality management > > > > > and has a lot of experience in the practical work of building, using > > > > > and changing systems, while keeping his gaze frimly fixed on the > > goals > > > > > (QM as it should be be, but, in my experience, so seldom is); gruff > > as > > > > > someone who sees people/societies trying stuff, getting into messes, > > > > > starting over and, somehow, sometimes, getting it a bit more right > > the > > > > > next time (that old 51%/49% optimistic analogy that I often doubt but > > > > > always admire). > > > > > > So ... I think I'll stay out of this for a while and hope you both > > > > > carry on! > > > > > > Francis- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > ( > ) > I_D Allan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
