SPECIAL NOTE : Those who are not interested in the debate on altruism
and political philosophy should simply delete this mail.
>>Not having to work to ensure one's survival is in
>>opposition with one reality shared by many cultures,
>>especially puritanical and/or economically-centered
>>ones.
Alain : Perhaps this is why a creeping-malaise has crepped in for some
years now. Our market-oriented economies that assume never-ending
growth and/or our Protestant Work Ethic and/or our attitude that Man
should dominate Nature ... are out of synch with the times. Worse
still, they may lead us to disaster (ecological collapse).
>>(And in truth, it's the primary reality OC will
>>exist/compete for attention in.)
Alain : Yes and no. For one thing, we are open source and OC will be
available free or at little cost. Secondly, it�s optimistic to think
that OC will have a serious impact on current for-profit providers. We
will indeed be competing for peoples� attention, though. That much is
true.
>Rob, I always accept the fact that my view of life
>might be limited by the world I live in and by things
>like education and social surroundings.
Alain : Definitely! Which is why �altruistic� initiatives, like free
or lost-cost education, and medicare, are so important.
>But actually, I wasn't aiming at the fact that they
>didn't make money, I was pointing out the fact that the
>way communism was supposed to work (everybody works to
>his best ability and the community sees to the well-
>being of all) wasn't accepted by the people ...
Alain : People are not fools. If those in charge abuse their power
and/or reserve the lion�s share of the booty for themselves, people
will become un-motivated. If a person�s contributions are not
recognized and/or not rewarded and/or reprimanded, then the person will
only provided the minimum effort necessary to keep his job.
>... because it made the assumption that everyone was
>only good. Marx completely ignored the fact that what
>makes us human is the ambiguity of good and bad, busy
>and lazy.
Alain : This is a REALLY fundamental question : Is Human Nature
essentially good or bad? Spontaneously active or driven by Need?
Personally, I tend to favour the more flattering alternative! ;-)
>Of course people did not work to the best of their
>ability. The harder you worked, the more you are robbed
>-- in theoretical communism.
Alain : In theory, Communism puts much more trust in Human Nature than
other political philosophies do. People don�t need an external
motivator (money) to force them to work. People work together to
achieve a greater goal, instead of struggling to see who gets the most.
Capitalism is the Law of the Jungle.
>The less you work, the greater the percentage of what
>you earn that you keep. That is, the less you are
>robbed. The only_logical_conclusion one can come to is
>to be a lazy bum ...
Alain : Would you act in this manner if you were working for yourself?
If the fruits of your labours were properly distributed because of a
fair assessment of your contribution to the success of the entreprise?
And that your work, over and above the money you earned accomplishing
it, was appreciated and brought you many satisfactions, including the
fact that you participated freely in an endeavour that is or will
become greater than one�s self.
>... unless one has managed to convince oneself that
>slavery and serfdom to the state is right. Which it's not, and never
will be.
Alain : Pick your poison! Slavery to money and the job-market is not
much better! Let�s aim for some kind of middle-ground here. I would
suggest that we all become self-employed and federate ourselves
democratically with other like-minded individuals.
>>I was born in 1943, and didn't travel to Europe until
>>1966; so I can hardly claim expertise as to the
>>failure of Communism. I would say any system whose
>>philosophy includes the use of force to obtain
>>converts is doomed to fail eventually.
Alain : It failed because it did not achieve what I call �Collective
Intelligence�, borrowed liberally from the author Pierre L�vy. It�s a
very empowering concept that he has written about in many of his books,
notably in the one entitled �Intelligence collective�. In a nutshell,
it is diametrically opposed to hierarchical, bureaucratic,
non-accountable, top-down forms of organization that centralize power
in the name of efficiency.
>Please do not mix up communism and what became reality
>under this name in the USSR. Marx' concepts were very
>different from the way it turned out in the end. What
>happened in the USSR is often referred to as socialism
>(which, again, isn't social democracy).
Alain : It is often been said (by linguists notably) that we cannot
think of something if we don�t have a word for it. But the contrary is
true as well. Words are often merely labels that we attach to things
that we misunderstand and/or as a mental shortcut to avoid thinking too
much about it. Communism, Socialism, Democracy and Anarchy are just
such terms.
>What happened to the soviet union is the only thing
>that can happen when one tries to implement Marx's
>concepts: Starvation. Death. Destruction. Downfall.
Alain : Have you read Marx ?
>Marx takes resources from the able, the people who do
>innovate, and gives it to the unable (or unwilling) who
>sit around and do nothing.
Alain : What�s your spin on, say, MicroSloth buying out small-sized
innovators like Soft Image, and maintaining their monopolies because of
monstrous amounts of capital? Venture capitalists that seek out
promising technology-startups in order to take them over? Banks that
would rather invest in a �sure� thing like �Bre-X� instead of investing
in small and medium-sized businesses, despite the fact that these small
and medium-sized businesses are responsible for over 70% of all new
jobs created in the last 20 years. Do you really believe in
�Trickle-Down Economics�?
>Marx would have Einstein invent relativity without
>paper, Edison, the lightbulb, phonograph, etc., without
>a lab, and Ford build a car without a factory. After
>all, it is not "fair" if those people get those things
>and others don't!
Alain : I have not read Marx but I do know enough about his political
philosophy to state that one of its main ideas is to give back to the
workers the means of production, instead of leaving these means in the
hand of an elite few. The assembly line belongs to the workers that use
it, not some rich person that does none of the work.
>>There is a weakness in any social support
>>system that creates dependency.
Alain : The Welfare State is often criticized for this. It costs too
much and it creates dependency. But close examination of the
expenditures of the government shows that the Safety Net provided by
the Welfare State costs very little, compared to say expenditures on
military might, or accrued priviledges of the state�s bureaucracy.
Besides, how would things be if we didn�t have the minimal Safety Net
that we have today? Desperate people without hope are capable of
anything. Without a safety net, civility will degenerate to the point
where we will be living in a �Dog-Eat-Dog� world where no one is safe.
Alain : Case in point : medicare in the USA versus medicare in Canada.
In the USA, you get the best care that can be provided, as long as you
have the money to pay for it. But, if you get sick in the USA and you
don�t have a job, then you�re up shit creek without a paddle. People
have to mortgage everything they got if a love one becomes chronically
ill. In Canada, on the other hand, Medicare is free and available to
everyone. It�s not perfect, of course. Sometimes you have to wait. But
you don�t have to be employed, and you won�t be bankrupted either. It�s
more humane and ... you know what ... it turns out to be more
cost-efficient for us canadians than it is in the USA.
>>Some years ago 60 Minutes or some similar show
>>documented what happened to the quality of life in a
>>South Sea island fishing community that became totally
>>dependent on US aid. (...) So altruism can actually be
>>damaging to the recipient (surprise??...wasn't it a
>>major justification for the Inquisition?), and in such
>>cases I guess it must be the epitome of egoism.
Alain : You have to look at what kind of aid was provided. Did the aid
really assist the recipients, given their local conditions and needs?
Or was it another flashy money donation, or another example of
inappropriate technology transfer (ex: high-tech dependency-creating
pesticides/strains).
>You are completely right. I never said altruism was a
>good thing (OTOH, please don't think I want to say it's
>bad either -- it's in between).
Alain : I could not disagree more!
>Well, it harms the supposed benefactor and the giver,
>so what else can it be besides bad? I'll say it:
>Altruism is bad. Altruism is evil. Altruism is the end
>of civilization. Altruism is starvation. Altruism is
>the philosophy of death.
Alain : Without altruism, civilization will degenerate into barbarism.
>Or rather, from my viewpoint (seemingly objective to
>me) I believe real altruism doesn't exist. But it's a
>concept that has been proven over and over again to be
>one of the best ways in some cases to keep a community
>alive.
Alain : Aha! I agree substantially with this. I suppose one can cast
doubt on the existence of �true altruism�, but I don�t.
>Real altruism is working for your neighbors without any
>concern for yourself. Real altruism is becoming your
>neighboors' slave. Real altruism creates dependancy,
>destroys independance, and leaves an entire society in
>a the state of slaves.
Alain : I gather that you are saying that for altruism to be �Real
altruism�, it has to 100% altruistic. I believe, on the other hand,
that altruism is not binary. It can be found anywhere ranging between
0% (selfish) and 100% (selfless).
Regards
P.S.: I am really enjoying myself with this debate.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
