Re-Shaping the landscape in the wake of the Cold War - Page 4

Az · February 9, 2003, 19:24

Frogger, I seem to remember you having a problem with Israel not allowing corporate donations.

DuncanK · February 9, 2003, 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

You're talking about an enforced moral code, that will never work. Either they care or they don't, you can't just force that on anyone. And people are selfish, that's just another aspect of the survival instinct. It's part of our biological makeup. Some are just more selfish than others, the same way that some are stronger or smarter than others.

You are assuming that people can only be selfish. We live in a society that teaches people to be selfish. It's cultural conditioning. Western society didn't use to be like that. Selfishness began to be accepted with the commercial revolution. Before that it was sinfull to be selfish. There is no reason why we can't go back to being unselfish once you take personal property out of the picture.

You can't enforce a law that forbids people from being selfish. I was just pointing out that unselfish people tend to be better workers. Selfish people are always doing something to get out of work and put their work on some other willing person.

KrazyHorse · February 9, 2003, 19:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Frogger, I seem to remember you having a problem with Israel not allowing corporate donations.

Doesn't sound like something I'd say. It's possible, but it's also possible that I was having a bit of fun just needling some Israeli.

Az · February 9, 2003, 19:39

Hey!!!!!!!!!

seriously, though. I remember you saying this about the Sharon case.

KrazyHorse · February 9, 2003, 19:40

What exactly?

I didn't comment very much on that. All I know about it is that Sharon supposedly took some illegal loans from a south africans and that his sons got some illegal donations so he could pay the loan back.

You might be thinking of some other poster, but I won't swear to it.

DuncanK · February 9, 2003, 19:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Duncan - ahhh, I see what you're getting at. You're saying that the fat cat rich guys don't have to work, and you're exactly right. But then, since they're already AT the top of the pyramid, they don't have to worry 'bout social mobility either (unless they're just really stupid with their investments).

But for the rank and file....for guys like me....yep....I gotta go out there every day and put my nose to the grindstone, and in fact, I do more than that. I've written three books, and am workin' on a computer game....and it's working....

-=Vel=-

That's all great work!

I don't know what your incentive was for doing all that work. I assume it was for money, judging by your social philosophy. It could have been because you enjoy writing books and creating computer games though. My point is that many people like to work. They will work regardless, and enjoy it. There are also people in our society who hate work and will do anything to get out of it. A lot of those people become wealthy, and a lot of people who like to work just make small wages. The financial incentives don't make people work more. That's a lot of crap that people who become wealthy want us to believe. It's just very unbelievable propaganda. I smile when I hear it and shake my head we I see someone who truly believes it.

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2003, 19:49

Quote:

There are also people in our society who hate work and will do anything to get out of it. A lot of those people become wealthy, and a lot of people who like to work just make small wages.

Any proof for this statement? It seems to me that those people that LOVE to work make the big bucks. Those that hate work will try to get out of it and won't do enough to get promotions.

Plenty of people that are at the top DO work very, very, very hard. John D. Rockefeller, for example, was 24/7 at work, over his figures and negotiations. He is famous for saying anyone can become a millionaire if that is ALL you think about. And I believe that to be true. A lot of millionaires have no social lives because they've been working all the time.

Those fops that inherit their wealth don't count in this generalization though

.

Quote:

The financial incentives don't make people work more.

Damn straight it does!! I worked for $6/hr at CVS and people called out all the time. It wasn't worth it for them to come in. If we were paid even $8/hr, more people would consistently show up to work. The financial incentives would definetly make people work more.

Sandman · February 9, 2003, 20:10

Willem:

Quote:

Multi-nationals don't just consider wages when they enter a country. Here in Canada, there were a lot of people that predicted that all the manufacturing jobs would head south to Mexico or the States when NAFTA was signed. Some did, most didn't.

Yes, but Canada is not a developing country. I do agree that companies do not just consider wages, however.

Quote:

Look at S. Korea. It was little more than a third world country after the war, but now they've become a fairly sophisticated ecomony with a highly skilled labour force. Did the multi-nationals pack up and head elsewhere when that happened? For the most part no.

South Korea benefitted from substantial US aid, as it was a Cold War boundary. It was also a military dictatorship for most of it's life, contradicting Vel's point about democracy being much better for economic growth.

Quote:

What's your point exactly? Or are you suggesting that multi-nantionals will be the only ones setting up shop in those countries. If so, that's rather narrow-minded if I must say so.

Vel gave the impression that inviting multi-nationals into new democracies was the only way to success. Complain to him.

Vel:

Democratic warlikeness: The dictatorships which surround India and Israel could also claim that they were protecting themselves from their hostile democratic neighbours. The argument works both ways.
Strongarm tactics is just a euphimism for warmongering, something democracies are just a willing to do as dictatorships.

Education: Education is preferable to ignorance, but I do not believe that education will make people better able to make judgements about who should rule them. In some ways, education makes propaganda more effective, since someone who is able to read will be more susceptable to propaganda than someone who is illiterate. You should also consider that the process of education itself is likely to contain propaganda. If education blunts the effect of propaganda, then why is so much money spent on election campaigns across the world, even in well-educated countries? Obviously, education will also dampen the effect of propaganda as well, so that is why I consider it to be more or less neutral.

Economy: I have checked your argument, and you say that "All countries go through the VERY SAME cycle when it comes to industrializing, and the newly democratized nations would be no exception." Why did (and do) so many poor democratic countries (new or not) fail to go through the cycle when they try to industrialise? I also fail to see the distinction between new democracies and poor democracies.

Investing in factories: By that logic, companies would NEVER relocate. But they do, and the costs of setting up a new sweatshop are not exactly expensive.

Marginal wage difference: Well, fair enough, although I think that it could still be economically sound to make the move.

Indigenous businesses: The vast majority of any developed countries economy is based on the internal market. Home-grown business is not a natural outgrowth, it is the backbone of any economy! I also fail to see how democracy will automatically enhance the growth of home-grown business, given the existence of poor democracies.

Third world labour: I think you are simply overestimating the level of freedom that third world workers have. They can't risk their families going hungry to demand a raise, and then getting fired as a troublemaker, or go to look for similar work when there's no way to get transport to it. The likelihood of similar factories nearby is not very likely, unless you think that multinationals deliberately cluster themselves to drive up wages.

UN controlling multinational schenanigans: Even the most powerful countries can't control multinationals, in fact multinationals can control countries. A wartorn country under occupation is hardly going to put up much of a fight against them, even with UN help or, more likely with the UN cooperating with the companies.

UN resolutions: Fair enough, although talking is still better than nothing.

Velociryx · February 9, 2003, 20:37

Duncan - Nope....just do it cos I enjoy it....the prospect of a spot of cash here and there is a perk....good perk, but still a perk....

Sandman - while it is certainly true that SK was not democratic for most of it's life, SK benefited by being another of "our boys" (as you yourself pointed out, recipient of constant aid and attention from the US), and in the end, when developed sufficiently, democratic roots sprouted. Rather than viewing this as an example that stands counter to my philosophies, I would regard it as a slow-motion test case (constant US aid, support and attention, rather than under the umbrella of the UN, and hand-holding of the non-democratic leadership for decades while infrastructure was being built, rather than forcing the dictator out NOW and installing a UN-Temporary government during that period). Same principles, but in slow motion.

My proposal would simply speed the process along and remove threatening arseholes from power so we don't wind up with situations like NK and Iraq.

Relocating companies: A variety of reasons here, lower wages chief among them, but also tax incentives (country says "hey....build your plant here and we'll forget about taxation for the first ten years...." - happens all the time), but the expense is certainly not trivial, and companies that do this sort of thing MUST take a long-term view. Another reason that foriegn investment grew in SK, for example, was the fact that businesses were fairly certain that the US would not suddenly abandon the region...thus, security to the minds of risk-averse businesses, money flows in, factories get built, people get jobs and skills, and things improve).

Democratic Warmongers: Look at the wars going on right now...today. How many of them were started by Democratic nations? How many by tin pot dictators? Look at world war two....that was started by? (if you answered "Dictator" you guessed right! At that point, Hitler was, in every meaning of the word, exactly that).

This of course does not mean that Democratic societies are somehow immune from ever starting wars, but in looking around the world today, it certainly seems to be a passtime of the Dictators more than the democratic governments.

Education: I still disagree, but even IF it could be proved that this was an incorrect argument, it is, at best a tangential argument, well away from the core of the proposed plan (as it was listed merely as a benefit OF the plan). Given the advantages of an educated populace over an uneducated one, however, I hardly think you will find people arguing in favor of keeping populations intentionally ignorant.

Economic Development: When looking at poor democracies and asking why they're still poor, it is important not to confuse the symptoms of their poverty with the economic development cycle. IF there are countries who are not going through the same generalized pattern of growth, then something is preventing it. Corruption, anti-business laws, too-lax business laws and practices, financial mismanagement....something. (and as you correctly point out, there are a number of these). All of this, save for the corruption is easily remedied by creating a volunteer arm of the revamped UN as proposed above, whereby retired executives volunteer their expertise to nations in various forms of trouble. Corruption....a bit more of a sneaky and hard to deal with problem (as we have corruption here at home, and can fully attest to). For that one, I have no good answer (YET), but I'm working on it....

As to indigenous businesses....we agree. Where we differ is this: Democratization carries with it all sorts of benefits (tangible and intangible to the local population). In the absence of corruption, and in the presence of well considered laws governing commerce, a democratic government is generally more accepting of individual innovation among its population, and more supportive of entreprenureal effort. I also contend that even WITH corrupted democratic governments, it is possible that some third party agency could step in and fill the gap ("Life in Africa," mentioned earlier....a program which I have supported, and plan to support further!)

Multi-national corporations: would meet their match, in the newly revamped UN, as a council could be formed with the specific purpose to study, watch for abuses, and dole out fines and other punishments when abuses are found. The revamped UN proposed would be a bigger dog than any singular nation could ever hope to achieve, and would be more than a match for even the largest multi-national corporation.

UN Resolutions: I disagree. Talking and writing resolutions without the teeth to back them up merely reveals the UN to be a paper tiger, and reveals the "resolutions" to be not worth the paper they are written on. This is, for the most part, the UN we see today. My plan would dramatically change that.

-=Vel=-

Ramo · February 9, 2003, 20:39

Quote:

They're a Marxist society, how else do you define socialism?

1. The set of Marxists is a subset of the set of socialists. I, for instance, am an anarchist, so have different ideas on socialism from a Marxist.
2. China is by no means Marxist. It's closer to being fascist.

Az · February 9, 2003, 21:03

Quote:

2. China is by no means Marxist. It's closer to being fascist

very correct, Ramo

Willem · February 9, 2003, 21:22

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Western society didn't use to be like that. Selfishness began to be accepted with the commercial revolution. Before that it was sinfull to be selfish. There is no reason why we can't go back to being unselfish once you take personal property out of the picture.

Who are you kidding? Take a look at history, all the petty wars plundering and corruption that took place, especially in the ancient era. Look at Julius Ceasar forcing his rule on the Roman Republic, the Vikings raiding the coast of Europe, Genghes Khan and the Mongol Hordes, the corruption in the Catholic church that led to Protestantism. If you don't think any of those things had anything to do with selfishness, then you're living in a dream world. Capitalism didn't make people selfish, we were selfish so we created capitalism.

That's not to say that morality can't temper the selfishness, but it will never eliminate it.

Quote:

Selfish people are always doing something to get out of work and put their work on some other willing person.

That's not true at all, selfish people tend to work harder, because they want more out of life. It's lazy people that let others do the work, that's a different thing altogether.

DuncanK · February 9, 2003, 21:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Who are you kidding? Take a look at history, all the petty wars plundering and corruption that took place, especially in the ancient era. Look at Julius Ceasar forcing his rule on the Roman Republic, the Vikings raiding the coast of Europe, Genghes Khan and the Mongol Hordes, the corruption in the Catholic church that led to Protestantism. If you don't think any of those things had anything to do with selfishness, then you're living in a dream world. Capitalism didn't make people selfish, we were selfish so we created capitalism.

I didn't say people were not ever selfish during that time. It was just frowned upon. Taking profit was considered a sin. I'm really talking mostly about the time before the commercial revolution.

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
That's not true at all, selfish people tend to work harder, because they want more out of life. It's lazy people that let others do the work, that's a different thing altogether.

Selfish people only work when it will get them something and then only to a point where they have to. They would much rather cheat, kiss ass, or stab someone in the back to get what they want. Maybe that's not lazy either, but I wouldn't call them hard workers.

Willem · February 9, 2003, 22:30

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

I didn't say people were not ever selfish during that time. It was just frowned upon. Taking profit was considered a sin. I'm really talking mostly about the time before the commercial revolution.

OK, I see what you're saying, and I basically agree with you. We've glorified greed, turned it into a new religion, taken selfishness to the extreme. And no that's not a good thing.

But changing those attitudes has to come from within, they can't be enforced. That's been the mistake of the failed socialist experiments so far, they tried to supress a tendency that is just an aspect of our nature. A successful society has to allow for that, give room for it's expression, which capitalism does very well. I would prefer to see limits placed on greed myself, rather than try to eliminate it altogether. That alternative hasn't worked very well in the past.

DuncanK · February 9, 2003, 23:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

OK, I see what you're saying, and I basically agree with you. We've glorified greed, turned it into a new religion, taken selfishness to the extreme. And no that's not a good thing.

But changing those attitudes has to come from within, they can't be enforced. That's been the mistake of the failed socialist experiments so far, they tried to supress a tendency that is just an aspect of our nature. A successful society has to allow for that, give room for it's expression, which capitalism does very well. I would prefer to see limits placed on greed myself, rather than try to eliminate it altogether. That alternative hasn't worked very well in the past.

I want to limit it too, not eliminate it. I know you can't eliminate it. The best that you can do is to get more people to like to work, because they know they are helping out not just because they have to or because they want to get rich.

Imran Siddiqui · February 9, 2003, 23:33

Quote:

Taking profit was considered a sin.

While at the same time the Church took profit hand over fist.

Face it, that thing about profit being frowned upon before the commerical revolution is BS. The elite were always into money, and tried their best to prevent the lower classes from accepting the same beliefs.

Why can it not be said that the 'lack of greed' was socially imposed constraint rather than greed being one?

Quote:

Selfish people only work when it will get them something and then only to a point where they have to. They would much rather cheat, kiss ass, or stab someone in the back to get what they want. Maybe that's not lazy either, but I wouldn't call them hard workers.

Some do work hard. However, those that are selfish to the point of asskissing and cheating don't really get you that far, contrary to popular opinion.

chequita guevara · February 10, 2003, 02:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
But changing those attitudes has to come from within, they can't be enforced. That's been the mistake of the failed socialist experiments so far, they tried to supress a tendency that is just an aspect of our nature.

One, no they didn't. Two, capitalism tries to suppress all instincts aside from greed, or which there are many.

GePap · February 10, 2003, 02:57

Stay away a couple of days and good hreads pop up everywhere.

Vel: not only would this admin. not implement your plans, but no admin. ever would do so either, and for that, I am grateful.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

There are many problems, which can be broken down into the fundamental and the practical.

The fundamental problems with your plan, as i see them, are:

1. The problem of legitimacy: First of all, in many cases you utterly discount nationalism. It is a terrible truth that Nationalism is the most important political idea in the world today: better ruled by a local thugs than a benevolent outsider. It was nationalism that brought down the Soviet Union, and nationalism that stiffled most democratis reforms in that area long enough to entrench the dictators that now rule most of those 15 ex-republics. The problem of legitimacy is compunded by the fact that you call for an imposed system, not only on those kept out, but those in. Would the voters of the democracies get to vote on whether they wish to join? If they don't get to say, then how democratic can it be? And can democracies opt out,and be left alone? Could they carry on business with the "evil" states if that was what they wanted, or would that make them "quisling' democracies?

2. The problem of definitions: others have stated the point about who defines the democracy. You? HRW? Each state? Democracy varies greatly, some are strong and some are weak. Some are being rotted from inside by ehtnic politics. Pakistan was done in that way, India is sadly slowly heading that way, Ivory Coast is another example. What about Apartheid SA? It was a democracy, which did not define most people as equal citizens (just like the ancient democracies).

Then there are the practical issues. They are many, but the most important is the following:

You grossly overestimate the power of the US, as does almost everybody. That the US today is unrivalled in the versitility of its military is unquestioned, but that lead is not based solely on our inherent strenghts (wealth, democracy, technical advancement) but because the other players in the system that share those qualities let us keep that lead: they spend their money elsewhere. They do so because, to one extent or another, they trust our stewardship of the system. Why buy your own guns if the cop on the beat is good? As 9/11 showed, destruction is cheap, and getting cheaper. Assault rifles make each man dangerous, chemical and biological weapons can do much harm for very cheap, and anyone can put together some powerful bombs. If at any point the US was viewed as an unfit steward, then our lead would vanish, not because somehow we become weak, but because evryone else would take it upon themselves to aquire means to be as destructive as they can be, for their own survival. The US then can't impose a new system without the consent of most states. To try to do otherwise is to bring to question our leadership, and in one bold stroke to make the world a far more dangerous place.

Fom 1914-1945 at least 100 million died in wars and massacres out of a top population of 2 billion. In the last 50 years the number of humans has grown 200% while the number of terrible destructive wars has gone down. Is the system perfect? No, and it will never be, but the system we have today has seen more human beings reach better lives than at any other time in human history. Improvement is good, but it must be viewed as legitmate, or the whole house of cards comes down.

Willem · February 10, 2003, 10:47

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
One, no they didn't.

Oh so private enterprise flourished under the Soviets did it? What happened to all those farmers that didn't want their land turned into a collective enterprise? Siberia or death.

Quote:

Two, capitalism tries to suppress all instincts aside from greed, or which there are many.

Funny, I'm living in a capitalist society right now, and I don't feel suppressed. In fact, I feel quite free to express myself in any way I choose to.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 11:10

GePap….only two fundamental flaws? That’s a smaller number than I expected if either you or Boris saw this thread….

I’ve heard the phrase before. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Maybe so, but I always ask….with no intentions whatsoever, where does the road lead to?

And the answer:

Nowhere.

So…while it IS true that sometimes (less than 100% of the time) good intentions have bad results, it is also true that inaction gets you nowhere, exactly 100% of the time. Which is superior? The answer, for me at least, is clear.

The two problems you mention with the plan as outlined are….pretty big problems, but I would contend that they are by no means insurmountable.

Legitimacy: This problem is solved by acting *through* the United Nations, which is a legitimate world body, if something of a paper tiger at present. The revisions proposed would make it any thing but a paper tiger, however, and so the real question becomes, would the United States have sufficient political clout to make the changes needed? As far as opting out or voting to join….no….by being a nation state on planet earth, you are, by default, a member. And nations just can’t “opt out” either, but that does not make it undemocratic. Virginia cannot “opt out” of the Union that is the United States, and by your logic, this would make the US a dictatorial state, yes? As to nationalism, it is entirely possible to structure a UN temporary government in such a way that it *would be* led by members of the indigenous peoples, and merely backed up and supported by UN forces and advisors, to prevent warlordism from running rampant in country.

Working Definition of Democratization (subject to revision by the revamped UN): The People choose their leaders. Free elections. No coercion, no guns pointed at them if they dare to vote for “the opposition.”

-=Vel=-
PS: And for the record, my plan has nothing to do with America enforcing its will on other nations, and so my estimation of this country’s relative strength doesn’t really play into the plan outlined above at all (except for where leading the charge for change in the UN goes).

Arrian · February 10, 2003, 11:51

Good thread, Vel.

It ain't gonna happen (like you say in your first post), but it's nice to think about.

GePap,

The law of unintended consequences certainly applies here, but Vel does have a valid counterpoint (not trying = not getting anywhere).

Che,

Quote:

One, no they didn't. Two, capitalism tries to suppress all instincts aside from greed, of which there are many.

Talk about turning reality on its head! The communist dictatorships never surpressed people (or ideas), but rather it is the democratic capitalist societies that do the suppressing. That's priceless. When do you get shipped to San Quentin, you suppressed Commie, you?

-Arrian

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 11:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Oh so private enterprise flourished under the Soviets did it? What happened to all those farmers that didn't want their land turned into a collective enterprise? Siberia or death.

They never said you couldn't be greedy. They just said you can't own private property.

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Funny, I'm living in a capitalist society right now, and I don't feel suppressed. In fact, I feel quite free to express myself in any way I choose to.

How about the instinct to own the means of production for the goods you produce?

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 12:00

Thanks man! I'm doing this when I need to be getting my butt in gear and makin' the combat interface window for Candle'Bre...LOL...but, I'm....thinkin' about it/workin' on it....

And yep....I wasn't *even* gonna touch Che's latest, but I'm glad that someone did!

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 12:03

Duncan, what you say is contradictory.

If you can't OWN anything, then how can you possibly be greedy?

As for owning what you produce, let me ask you this:

If you use MY $500,000 machine to make something....who owns it. You? You could not have made it without my mondo-expensive machine, true?

-=Vel=-

Arrian · February 10, 2003, 12:04

A thought on the Che/Duncan line of thought regarding people's motivations:

People who are motivated primarily by "good" things like enjoying what they do (good for you, Vel) aren't really a problem. Those aren't the people who need added incentive. They're gonna work anyway. It's the lazy ****s (hmm... kinda like me) who need to have that extra financial incentive to work (more). Get it?

-Arrian

Willem · February 10, 2003, 12:10

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

They never said you couldn't be greedy. They just said you can't own private property.

I fail to see the distinction frankly.

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 12:30

Willem,

You can dream of expoliting people, but if you really do it then that's different. Why should that ever be legal? Just so people can have an outlet? No way.

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 12:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Duncan, what you say is contradictory.

If you can't OWN anything, then how can you possibly be greedy?

See my answer to this to Willem.

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
As for owning what you produce, let me ask you this:

If you use MY $500,000 machine to make something....who owns it. You? You could not have made it without my mondo-expensive machine, true?

-=Vel=-

That misses the point. My arguement is that the means of production should be community property.

DuncanK · February 10, 2003, 12:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
A thought on the Che/Duncan line of thought regarding people's motivations:

People who are motivated primarily by "good" things like enjoying what they do (good for you, Vel) aren't really a problem. Those aren't the people who need added incentive. They're gonna work anyway. It's the lazy ****s (hmm... kinda like me) who need to have that extra financial incentive to work (more). Get it?

-Arrian

I'm not all against incentives. People should be rewarded for hard work. And I'm not talking about plaques and crap that our bosses give us these days. I'm talking about real incentives, like more vacation.

Arrian · February 10, 2003, 12:42

Vacation is time. Time is money. Just in a different form. For me, that's literally true, as I can "buy" an extra 5 days of vacation (for the cost of my salary for those days... I'm just signing up for 5 days of unpaid vacation). Believe me, I buy those 5 days every year.

-Arrian