Dear Robert and f/w friends, all,
Thanks in abundance for this.
I strongly agree that a 'pre-design' analysis of values is worth doing.
(I've a values-selection list that I could e-send in this vein.)
A complimentary approach that I've played with is to craft a 'Needs-Based'
analysis, which might well lead to a 'Need-Based Politics' rather than the
'Rights-Based Politics' so beloved of many reformers.
(Again, I can e-send an essay on that - apologies that I've pre-worked on
these matters!)
At base of all, we need to dispense with the need for money to make its
maximum return in the minimum possible time, since this leads to the
following heirarchy:
Needs of money > Needs of people > Needs of the planet > Needs of
good/god/the moral way/whatever
(Omit the last if this god-stuff fraggles you!)
I'm strongly of the view that we need invert this ordering, and, that to do
this, the abolition of usury is key - and that can only be achieved thro'
appropriate legislation.
Abundant hugs to you all,
j
**************************
----------
>From: "W. Robert Needham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: The two essential features of the capitalist system
>Date: Wed, Dec 22, 1999, 9:34 AM
>
> re: your post of Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:43:52 -0500
>
> A quick reponse.
>
> What do you mean by communism? Is the organizational form or your communism
> hierarchical as in the 'Etatism' of Stalin's Russia? What are the
> operational sets of values that are at work in capitalism (how about
> unconstrained liberty, inequality, and law of the jungle competition) and
> in your communism (how about liberty constained by state in all dimensions,
> inequality, and forced fraternity of war time trenches (see B. Crick,
> Socialist Values and Time, Fabian Society)?
>
> In defining an ideal system why not start with a base camp position that
> what we humans are all about or ought to be all about is to create the
> conditions for the free and full development of each person as the
> conditions for the free and full development of all (Marx and Engels).
> Subsequent logac may get one to the realization that the operational set of
> values that seems likely to best do that is: liberty morally constrained by
> not doing injustice to others; equality, defined as the eliimination of all
> unjustifiable inequalities (something society can't get by any other means
> would seem to be a justification for an inequality); and community
> mindfulness.
>
> The words of this 'trinity' of secular values seems preferable to the old
> fashioned liberty, equality and fraternity. Negative freedom or "freedom
> from something" fits in as freedom from injustice done to you by others.
> Note this puts the emphasis on the positive developmental freedom to do or
> to become of each that is missing in conventional liberalism, ie.,
> capitalism (private bureaucracy governs, including the government) and in
> etatism (state bureaucracy governs all) where unmorally constrained liberty
> dominates the argument in each and developmental freedom is assured only to
> those who dominate).
>
> What is 'left', I think, is a flatter participatory democracy which can be
> thought of as social democracy or a full democracy of human rights
> consistent with the UN UDHR.
>
> It helps to ask what sort of society do you want to live in and what sort
> of society would you like to leave to your children and grandchildren.
> Justice is impossible in both capitalism and etatism so we struggle,
> however slowly, for social democracy. Having the definitions straight seems
> to help in some sense.
>
>
>
>>Dear f/w friends
>>
>>Time, perhaps for a next step in this.
>>
>>My guess might be that few of us see capitalism as *the* last word in social
>>and global management ('That which has a start also has an end' and so on.)
>>
>>I think, that, if we are to have any chance of defining a better system (at
>>least one, practically, that we could get to within our? life-times!), then
>>defining 'where we are now' is one fair place to start.
>>
>>Ok, Ok, I accept that defining tangibles and intangibles is a slippery task.
>>tho' key to that is to try to untangle cause from effects (Dilbert:
>>"Capitalism; The harder I work, the fatter my boss becomes." - a description
>>of cansequences rather than cause - this definition is equally true of other
>>heirarchy-based systems!)
>>
>>Hence I accept, full well, that the operational level of definition that I
>>took from the Oxford Dictionary ("Private ownership of the means of
>>production and their use for private profit' - I paraphrase a bit) is a
>>start only, but this will get us along.)
>>
>>(Consider, for example, the fact that the above has an 'ethical' component
>>behind it - that ownership of anything is realistically possible,which we
>>could challenge, *but* let's leave that to one side for while.)
>>
>>
>>So, the OD definition leads to the start of the following start to a table
>>of possibilities:
>>
>>
>>Economic system Ownership of productive assets Ownership of benefits
>>
>>Capitalism Private Private
>>
>>Communism Public Public
>>(Theoretical?)
>>
>>
>> OK, f/w friends, any others?
>>
>>Hugs
>>
>>john
>>
>>***********
>
>
> Dr. W. Robert Needham
> Director, Canadian Studies Program
> St. Paul's United College
> University of Waterloo
> Waterloo Ontario N2L 3G5
> http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/ECON/faculty/needham.html
>
>
>
