Hi Rog,
after all we all seem to be moderate. I don't think there's so much of a distance,
maybe not really lightyears, between our positions. And I take that as a good sign
of the times too. Once upon a time, especially the USSR was identified with the
devil itself, yankees (and right-winded italians) would probably be much more
strict in their condemnation of any form of social-whatever. I think that this
proves that from any conflict between (intellectual) extremes, fruitful mediation
will sooner or later spring. Except for my concern for the earth being destroyed
too soon, I find this pretty comforting (not joking).
Just like your post was a reaction to someone's else, and a bit overemphasized
too, as I understand, some of mine were overemphasized as a reaction to people
saying that the USA is the best country in the world blah blah blah (no offense,
just skipping). Let's come to terms now. But let me tell you that I still hear you
USA-supporters talk about life in the USA alone, except that in an overall
capitalistic world, to me, there is still the concern of understanding if the poor
are poor because the rich are rich; or maybe there's a less direct relationship,
but still you have to check the behavior of your country towards the rest of the
world. One of the problem with controlled capitalism or controlled free-market is
that over-national institutions seem yet to be a bit too weak to "tame the beast"
as it freely scurries up and down the globe. It seems far too easy to have
children work for western big companies in some country lost in the darkest corner
of the world; or, if some of our products turn out to be nocive and are banned in
our protected shell, let us sell them to those africans (this has happened, and I
think is still happening, with an italian company). And of course USA did a lot of
good to the rest of the world, including WW2. All I ask for is that we avoid
black&white pictures, which you seem to have good will to do, too...
Thus I will quit my vetero-communist mode (declare I wholeheartedly support
Marco's post) and go on to reply to what you want me to (or I feel the need to...)
I reply "OK" to the fact that we need to experiment with intermediate solutions
between unregulated capitalism and rigidly state-controlled economy.
> ROG:
> But it works smashingly well here. We have the freedom to choose a career in
> various fields that add value to others or to start our own business that offers
> goods or services that others need. We have freedom, a high standard
> of living where the wealthy pay the majority of taxes, great universities,
> health care, science, technology, control of crime etc.The US really is a very
> safe and comfortable place to live or visit despite Hollywood depictions and
> occasional anecdotal incidents to the contrary (after all, RMP already spoke to
> the dangers of being dynamic).
We (europeans) have a certain idea of USA that doesn't match your picture. I am
sure there's a lot of safe places to live peaceful livings in the USA, but in our
picture, the opposite does not show up in "anectodal incidents". We have the idea
you have pretty tough racial problems, for example, and (not so small) minorities
being quite poor and unsatisfied with the system. And there are a lot more dark
facets in our idea of USA, which I can't begin to list. Probably mass media have
worked against USA outside USA for some reason, too, and the truth is somewhere in
the middle between Hollywood's depictions and your optimism (or closer to one of
the extremes). That's hard to tell.
There's always multiple viewpoints on each "static quality pattern", and I've come
to believe that there's really something right and something wrong in each. Gulf
War, Vietnam War, CIA's misbehaviors, and such, who knows. But as I said, I want
to avoid B&W pictures, so I'm ready to try to understand each viewpoint, honestly.
> Free enterprise does this primarily through competing interest groups. State
> controlled economies suffer from the same threat of exploitation by the state,
> often without checks and balances.
We share the same concern, as you say, but you will keep depicting what the
*solution* is on your side and what the *problems* may be on the other. But
elsewhere you clearly state that you understand the problems may also apply to
capitalism and the solutions may also apply to socialism, so I won't argue, I'm
satisfied with it.
> A:
> I heard *this* argument (of people being evil) over and over and over again.
> R:
> Who said anything about people being evil? I said people having the choice to
> do what they want.
In the sentence I was replying to, you said that it is more natural for people to
care for themselves than for some kind of collective. In my *own* vocabulary this
translates to evil (a mild form of). It is my feeling that it becomes easier for
people to care for some collective when they feel they belong to that collective
and the collective belongs to them. This is why I mentioned families as an example
of collective that some easily assign higher priority than they do to their self.
Here I may be a sentimentalist, but in the end, I think man's progress will come
to a stop unless men begin to feel part of a collective and learn to love (or
respect) that collective. By selfishness, btw, I mean exactly "chasing one's
benefit independent of the consequences on others"; selfishness has a "evil"
connotation in italian, I thought it was the same in english. If you mean that one
(also) cares for oneself, I'll agree that'll always be needed and is no evil. I
just mean that we must learn to respect others, work for others' benefit, and love
each and every collective we belong to, from our families, to our country, to our
planet.
That's what most religions have been telling us, too, and I think this basic
teaching is worthy. Communism too leveraged on these feelings; in a way it's never
been the opposite of christianity, for example (rather, it had good reasons to
oppose to church). If you look at it all from above you see a common trait. That's
too another example of intellectual extremes whose apparent opposition has come to
dissolve over time. If the Pope is on one political side, I would guess he's on
the left more than the right nowadays (personal opinion).
MOQ provides us with a way to really overcome traditional political chit chat,
IMO. See that both left and right feed on intellectual static quality patterns.
See that static quality patterns always have some good and bad in them, and
opposite static patterns transform in one another at the next rotation of the Yin
Yang (going too mystic?)
> This includes supporting one's family or community or whatever. Why do you
> assume that people having the freedom to pursue their desires in ways that
> doesn't harm others is evil? Let's get to the root of this issue...OK?
I don't assume it is evil, I think I replied. Was talking of selfishness as
defined above. (Sorry if I attached extra meaning to the english word
"selfishness").
> R:
> I will instead point to environmentalist groups and consumer opinion, to the
> democrats, to the legislative and judicial branch, to trial attorneys that are
> extracting billions from the abusive cigarette manufacturers, to AOL and the US
> govt parrying the overgrowth of microsoft. Does one powerful group gain the
> upper hand at any one time? Yes, but the checks and balances of our diverse
> culture corrects for these abuses over time.
Yes. You have to means of regulation: the market's self-regulation (via
competition), which works sometimes but is always hazardous, too (may fail) and
regulation by the state, which is, likewise, hazardous but sometimes work. Can we
find a way to balance both to make sure they will (most) *always* work? That's a
worthy goal, it seems to me. More on that line, one problem to face in the
immediate is that companies have become *worldwide* entities much faster than
judicial and political institutions did. This is the most dangerous aspect of
modern capitalism, in my opinion. Large companies have been building extremely
vast and complex financial nets and it's getting very hard to know what's going on
and control them (to the extent that it's good to control them). That's one reason
why I said
> it's contradictory to be fans of the MOQ and supporters of the "free" market
> system "as is"
The second reason is that mass media are the primary means of culture delivery,
too. One thing I would expect from (and appreciate about) a "socialist" country is
the presence of a strong public TV system to balance the private, money driven TV.
Like it or not, TV is what tells us what the world is. (People doesn't read many
books apart from those that get advertised on TV, too) I get my opinion (a wrong
one, maybe) on USA mainly via TV, as I seldom read political or historical books.
Another very worthy battle to fight is balancing market-driven TV with a public
(STRONG) TV and mass media system. This does not need be the big-brother soviet
television, too. It has to be a democratic television. As you suggest regulation
of free enterpise, I too suggest regulation of the state's activities, and that's
one example.
> But why do you want to force someone to be subservient to others?
I think I replied. That was not "subservient to others", that was "willing to work
for the collective" (besides for oneself, too, of course).
> R:
> Advertisers created selfishness? Ah yes, the myth of the noble
> pre-industrialist. Get real. Most of our resources go to housing,
> transportation and food. Not designer jeans and tennis shoes. If I want to buy
> my own lawn mower I will. However I happen to agree with you. I see buying
> one as silly. That is why I pay someone that owns one to mow my lawn (as do
> about half my neighbors). And, are you actually arguing that other-than free
> enterprise societies don't influence individual values?
Actually, the root of selfishness lies, in my opinion, in private property itself
(tail eating snake?), which is admittedly at the heart of capitalism too. I see
selfishness (in the negative meaning above) as a reaction to others' private
property. Its the law of the jungle reiterated - you can't rely on anyone's help
for your needs, so don't waste your resources. This is *direct* selfishness I'm
referring too now. It is probably too late (or too early) to consider alternatives
to this state of facts.
But the worst kind of selfishness brought about by advertising and consumerism is
the thoughtless one. That which incarnates as me speding 60Eu for a T shirt when a
Tanzanian would eat for a week with the same money. That's a worm-like beast that
lies undisturbed in the subconscious underground of our society, poetically
speaking (for what I can in english), and I think the time is almost come when
this beast must be catched and brought to the surface and disposed of (as
peacefully and moderately as we can).
Of course, I don't blame it on individual advertisers or individual consumers. I
would blame it on the "system" if this didn't sound so retro' and vetero-communist
too. Maybe the real enemy has yet to be found and given a name, it's something
related to the system, it's something that has been getting fat in capitalistic,
free-market countries and that maybe is not inherent in either capitalism and
free-marker themselves. But it has to be eradicated too.
> As for freedom to not work, I said you are free to choose it, not that you are
> free to choose it and have the ability to force others to pay for your choice.
> (and crime isn't what hollywood leads you to believe. Every free country has
> bad neighborhoods and good neighborhoods)
A misunderstanding occurred here, I think. You are talking from within the system.
That's perfectly reasonable, but because my point of view was instead "external",
we will only meet at a trivial point. Ok, we both know you can live without a job
in the USA (or Italy for that matter) and we both know what kind of life it's
gonna be (apart from exceptions such as "boating on a small income").
When Thoreau went in the wilderness, probably the wilderness weren't anybody's
property. Someday it *all* became somebody's property (the state's property,
maybe). I'm not saying there's something wrong in it. What I meant is that you
*cannot* live outside of the system. And the concept of property and money-cost of
the land is an epidemy. While it is only defined within a cultural system, the
capitalistic system will try to make sure everybody shares this concept, just like
the communists would have imposed their view on all the world. Thus you will have
australian aborigens sell their land. I think this first installation of the
system, too, has had immoral facets now and then, historically. A story (tell me
it has never happened): imagine the white men land on a Pacific Ocean island and
want to buy a mine of gold. Some natives will want to embrace the capitalistic
intellectual framework and actually *sell*. Some may reject the idea that land has
a price and insist that land is nobody's own. Tension increases and they fight.
Guess who will receive gun support from the capitalists. This is another aspect in
the regulation of capitalism, too. Private property should be a basic concept as
long as it is freely embraced.
When everything is sold and everything has a price you have no choice but to fight
for money. Period.
> R:
> Ah yes, free countries sieged communists. Thanks for the history. And I assure
> you, even the poorest person here is above the middle class in any past or
> present communist regime. And the beauty of it is that the poor here are not
> destined to be poor in the future. In fact most poor become middle class over
> time. You were aware of this weren't you Andrea?
Yes, I was aware of it. That's a good thing. I think I said I'm not a full fledged
socialist, thus I think you'll believe I am not a full-fledged communist, too. The
history lesson was a bit ironic in fact. But if you think it is *completely
untrue* that communists were sieged (and you are *completely right* to refer to
their opponents of the time as "free countries"), I still think you're missing
some facet of how things went. Honestly.
In Italy, we never had communists at the government, as you know. We were ruled by
center-right forces for a long time after WW2. But we had a strong communist
party. What I can tell you is that there were probably more good intensions and
more high and noble ideals on the communist's side than the average anti-communist
can imagine. Also, it was much harder, a few decades ago, to be sure as you seem
to be that anti-communist were the good guys.
To sum up: I think many very moral and intelligent people were communist, and
probably many very moral and intelligent people were anti-communist.
That was mainly a reaction to your "free" countries. The suspect that you have a
B&W picture resurfaces here and then... or you are maybe just using colorful
expressions to make the discussion more funny....
> R:
> No argument on environmental damage from any economic/political system. My
> only argument is that there is only one proven system to elevate standards of
> living, and it is economic freedom controlled to avoid exploitation by an
> excessively powerful state, the wealthy, or corporations. Moderated free
> enterprise.
I think we agree to a point. The point is: I think that possibly there *could* be
a system which is guaranteed to elevate standards of living (in and outside the
system itself), and that could be moderated free enterprise. This system may
possibly span from current free enterprise if we learn how to dispose of its
current (serious) problems.
I.e., I don't think we already have it, or that what we have is *proven* to
elevate standards of living (meaning overall - overall - overall....)
Just to let you know, my "overall" relates to the whole human race (no less). It
is my "temporary overall" as I wait for the times to be mature to use "overall"
including at *least* all animal kingdom. :)
Thanks for the discussion, anyway... I'll be happy to read any reply, if we're not
wasting Quality bandwidth.
AS
--
Andrea Sosio
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
